Quantification and Dosing of Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury: A Reappraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Delivered dialysis therapy is routinely measured in the management of patients with end-stage renal disease; yet, the quantification of renal replacement prescription and delivery in acute kidney injury (AKI) is less established. While continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is widely understood to have greater solute clearance capabilities relative to intermittent therapies, neither urea nor any other solute is specifically employed for CRRT dose assessments in clinical practice at present. Instead, the normalized effluent rate is the gold standard for CRRT dosing, although this parameter does not provide an accurate estimation of actual solute clearance for different modalities. METHODS: Because this situation has created confusion among clinicians, we reappraise dose prescription and delivery for CRRT. RESULTS: A critical review of RRT quantification in AKI is provided. CONCLUSION: We propose an adaptation of a maintenance dialysis parameter (standard Kt/V) as a benchmark to supplement effluent-based dosing of CRRT. Video Journal Club "Cappuccino with Claudio Ronco" at http://www.karger.com/?doi=475457.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".